---

by Cat
Would you agree with a Jewish butcher beign forced to sell bacon?

---

A jewish butcher wouldnt be stocking bacon and would have made a choice not to and if they had joined a company that sells bacon and want to be a butcher they would be pretty stupid to have gone into that proffesion without thinking they may have to handle it, and I think the same can be said of someone wanting to be a pharmacist.

---

by Cat
i doubt anyone, of any faith would refuse. they'd be a cold hearted b***er if they did but are still obliged to tell the person where else to try by law)

---

You would be suprised there are many places in the world where because of religion that women are forced to have their rapists child.

I also think that accusations of sleeping around ect for any woman who asks for the morning after pill are totally unneccesary.

---

by JtB
(quotes)

A jewish butcher wouldnt be stocking bacon and would have made a choice not to and if they had joined a company that sells bacon and want to be a butcher they would be pretty stupid to have gone into that proffesion without thinking they may have to handle it, and I think the same can be said of someone wanting to be a pharmacist.

---

Exactly. If you own a store then it's your right to decide what you sell. If you go and work for someone else then you don't pick and choose which parts of the job description you will and won't carry out, for whatever reason.

---

by Cat
I'd rather have concious people as pharmacologists who would care and tell me when something was wrong with my mix of drugs and maybe object on religious issues than one who didnt care at all.

---

"Side effects may include nausea, drowsiness and an eternity in hell."

Believe me, there are plenty of good pharmacists out there queing up for a job - all of whom will tell you when your mix of drugs is wrong and very few of whom would refuse to sell you things based on their faith/morals/ethics. I'd rather have one of those please.

JtB and DJ- Back to the bacon analogy.

The jewish person now doesnt have a choice because the goverment brought in new legislation that all butchers much sell bacon. Do you agree then?

Well in this case the goverment has brought in new legislation allowing the morning after pill to be sold over the counter at pharmacies.

Why should this poor religious person loose their job because of their beliefs? when they trained to be a pharmacist it wouldnt have been law and the goverment has changed the goal post.

---

by DJ
If it's forbidden by someone's faith to take the morning after pill then they shouldn't take it. But they shouldn't presume to stop other people taking it. That's a case of imposing your beliefs on other people.

---

So it's not a sin to help someone else commit a sin? it's a warped sense of valued you have. if it wasnt a sin why would assisted suiside still be illegal? because helping is still wrong.

---

by JtB
You would be suprised there are many places in the world where because of religion that women are forced to have their rapists child.

---

This happened in the UK and i was refering to british pharmacists. not that i agree with ths happening elsewhere, of course.

---

by JtB
I also think that accusations of sleeping around ect for any woman who asks for the morning after pill are totally unneccesary.

---

Why? this is just a woman who didnt take precautions and is upset the pharmacist wouldnt serve her.

---

by DJ
Believe me, there are plenty of good pharmacists out there queing up for a job - all of whom will tell you when your mix of drugs is wrong and very few of whom would refuse to sell you things based on their faith/morals/ethics. I'd rather have one of those please.

---

Wrong. thanks to my pharmacology training i spot many many clashes after having been sold drugs at a pharmacy. also, they tell me (and family members) not to take a certain drug because of clashes, when i know there's not a problem.

Most pharmacists arent as conciencious as you'd like to believe.

Now, this poor chap has been employed for years by ASDA. can you honestly say the goverments new legislation means he deserves to loose his job?

I'm still for asda, they should support him!

At the very least, Asda should have a sign up when their staff do not wish to supply this sort of product!

As it has already been shown on this board, people are still judgemental (wrongly!) about women who decide to use the morning after pill. This makes it even more difficult for a woman to approach a stranger for their assistance in such a personal matter. When you need a service from a professional such as a doctor or pharmacist you expect them to behave in a professional manner. To be turned away and made to feel that you are immoral will only make the situation worse for the woman.

---

by Cat
lets face it, if you sleep around and cant face a pharmacist not serving you, but telling you where else to try, then you still complain to the company, it's your own behaviour you arent comfortable with.

---

OK, I was a bit slow so this has already been said, but who said anything about the customer sleeping around? That kind of assumption is just plain wrong! There was nothing in the article to suggest it. Don't jump to conclusions!

---

by Cat
Wrong. thanks to my pharmacology training i spot many many clashes after having been sold drugs at a pharmacy. also, they tell me (and family members) not to take a certain drug because of clashes, when i know there's not a problem.

Most pharmacists arent as conciencious as you'd like to believe.

---

You're using a spurious example to try and illustrate your point though. Unless you're implying that pharmacists give out poor advice deliberately? Whether someone gives you good advice about your medication isn't about conciensciousness - it's about being good at your job. If a pharmacist has strong beliefs it doesn't mean he's necessarily going to be able to tell you that you can't take venlafaxine at the same time as an MAOI antidepressant such as phenelzine, is he?

---

by CatThe jewish person now doesnt have a choice because the goverment brought in new legislation that all butchers much sell bacon. Do you agree then?

---

Well personally, if I was a shop owner and I was forced to sell something that was against my religion then I'd either challenge the law or change profession. It's not just a case of selling an item. It would be against my religion to order, stock and handle that item too, so I certainly couldn't stock the item but refuse to sell it, which is after all what we're discussing here.

If we are talking about the situation where it's an employee rather than the owner then the change of law doesn't apply because why would butchers that are not Jewish owned not serve pig-related products beforehand anyway?

Personally I think that this law is wrong, but it's a completely different issue to the one we're discussing..

---

by Cat
Well in this case the goverment has brought in new legislation allowing the morning after pill to be sold over the counter at pharmacies.

Why should this poor religious person loose their job because of their beliefs? when they trained to be a pharmacist it wouldnt have been law and the goverment has changed the goal post.

---

It's unfortunate, but yes, and I'm afraid you've contradicted what you've said in the Rule Britannia thread...

---

by Cat
I have no problem with this. in 5 yrs when i can apply to become a spanish citizen i will submit to ANYTHING they want!

---

Anything? Even if it's against your religious belief? What you're saying is that if you want to become a citizen of a county you should be happy to do anything that country requires, like be happy to abide by their laws?

and then..

---

by Cat
Then you should have the same rights as any person born in the UK.

---

Which then implies that those who are already citizens of that country should also be expected to do the same. Unless of course you think that people wanting citizenship should have to abide by the prevailing laws in that country but existing citizens shouldn't? So, in extrapolating your argument from the other thread, you've already countered this point for me:

---

by Cat
Why should this poor religious person loose their job because of their beliefs? when they trained to be a pharmacist it wouldnt have been law and the goverment has changed the goal post.

---

Becuase citizens should abide by the laws.

---

by Cat
if it wasnt a sin why would assisted suiside still be illegal? because helping is still wrong.

---

Well that depends on which country you're in. And besides, assisted suicide is illegal here, assisting someone to buy the morning after pill isn't illegal. So I don't see how that point supports your argument.

---

by Cat
So it's not a sin to help someone else commit a sin?

---

Indeed it might be, which is why I qualified that sentence with this:

---

by DJ Billy
If it's against your religion to also provide that pill to other people then I understand why he didn't want to do it and indeed he shouldn't have to

---

which you chose to leave out of the quote. So when you read that quote in context, it makes this statement:

---

by Cat
it's a warped sense of valued you have.

---

rather unfair don't you think?





(Edited by DJ Billy 06/02/2004 13:55)

---

by Cat
Why? this is just a woman who didnt take precautions and is upset the pharmacist wouldnt serve her.

---

Once again you're making a big assumption about this woman. Do you know her?
Just because someone asks for the morning after pill doesn't mean they sleep around and doesn't take precautions.

I think one of the sad things about this case is not this woman in particular but the consequences it could mean for other women, or more importantly young girls. There are many unwanted pregnancies because young girls are too scared to anything about it. If they finally pluck up the courage to go and get the morning after pill and are faced with this ... well it just doesn't help the situation.

(Edited by Bryany 06/02/2004 11:45)

---

by Cat
Now, this poor chap has been employed for years by ASDA. can you honestly say the goverments new legislation means he deserves to loose his job?

---

No he shouldn't lose his job. Once the legislation came in ASDA should have taken precautions (ha ha) to ensure somone else was available to see that particular drug (and any other).

---

by Cat
Why? this is just a woman who didnt take precautions and is upset the pharmacist wouldnt serve her.

---

---

by Bryany
(quotes)Once again you're making a big assumption about this woman. Do you know her?
Just because someone asks for the morning after pill doesn't mean they sleep around and doesn't take precautions.

---

I have to agree with Bryany here, just because the woman isn't necessarily taking "the pill" doesn't mean she wasn't taking precautions. The only time I needed the morning after pill (and then you had to go through all the irritation of having to go and "explain yourself" to a doctor) was when I was using a condom which split with my hubby when we were a few years into our relationship. TMI, who cares - I'm just stating my case which may or may not be similar to the woman in question. After all, if she has a teenage daughter she's probably got more sense than *sleeping around*

OK so many people may have views on whether or not the morning after pill should be made available over the counter. But the point is - it is - and a public pharmacy should make a chemist available that can sell any of its products. If it was the person's own pharmacy then the decision would be theirs, but would have to be clearly marked to avoid customers making a fool out of themselves for asking.

I'm sure if I would have come up against a chemist telling me I couldn't have what I wanted to buy, I'd be stuttering and stammering and forgetting the complete conversation as I'd be embarrassed. Much like the woman in question, I'd probably start getting furious about their actions (or lack of) later!

---

by TNT
Do I get a prize for most quoted person of the day???????

---

Not now ya don't hunny

I've been away for a few days and haven't got time to read all of this and what I'm gonna say has probably been said 100 times already, but what the hell

---

by Cat
I think we all know that any woman using a relible contriceptive wouldnt be asking for the morning after pill, dont we?

---

Actually no. I had to ask for the morning after pill when a condom split on me and Justin three weeks after giving birth. I can't remember if I was back on the pill (do you have to wait 'til after you're next period before doing so ) but I know I didn't want another baby so soon. I was mortified but it was something that had to be done. The worse part was when the Dr had to dig out medical books to see if it was safe to give it to someone so soon after birth as she'd never had to before

---

by Cat
I've had sex thousands of times, a condom has never broken on me.

---

I was gonna put something about lack of male size or enthusiasm but that would be wrong. Wrong I tell you

Can we please keep this thread free of personal comments -- thank you

(Edited by Staff 06/02/2004 16:23)

Doesnt any one here realise it's not only immoral but illegal to discriminate based on religion?

Yes, ASDA should have some procedure in place or yes, it should have signs.

However as pharmacies only (generally) employ 1 pharmacist and he is the only one allowed to dispence some drugs, it wouldnt be cost effective for them to employ someone else. it'd be cheaper to loose some sales.

This man stood up for his beliefs and i applaud him. The morning after pill is designed to abort an embrio and i perfectly understand his reasioning.

can no one else see that to a deeply religious man (probably roman catholic) aborting even an embrio is a mortal sin? You would rather this man felt he was going to hell than send the lady in question to another pharmacy?

If they'd been out of stock he'd also have sent her elsewhere, I sereiously doubt she'd be moaning then though. she's only complaining because she feels a moral judjement was made against her by his refusal.

And DJ - i dont feel i contradicted myself. i would do anything to become a spanish resident. i'm thankful some freedoms are protected but if i had to convert to the RC faith, wear a tutu and yodel, i would. I'm that desperate to be a citizen.

I don't think anyone here is trying to discriminate against the man on religious grounds.

He should not lose his job, nor should be have been prevented from having a job because he is religious. What is being said is that ASDA should provide some other means of serving customers the drugs that the pharmacist refuses to.

By refusing to serve the woman, he is imposing his religious beliefs onto another and denying her the right to free choice. Neither of them should have been put in that position, so it is ASDA's fault, not theirs.

---

by Cat
The morning after pill is designed to abort an embrio

---

It is not designed to abort an embryo. It is designed to prevent pregnancy occuring.

www.lusu.co.uk/womens/emergencycont

If you scroll to the bottom of this link you can read what an abortion pill is.

www.brook.org.uk/content/M3_5_abortion.asp

The abortion pill is given to women who are already pregnant. The morning after pill is given to women who aren't pregnant.

So are you saying that women/girls who take the morning after pill are having an abortion? It's more than likely that conception hasn't taken place and all they're doing is getting rid of the lining of the womb which would have been shed during their next cycle anyway. Call it bringing on a period a couple of weeks earlier.

And another thing, what about women who take the 'regular' pill to prevent becoming pregnant? The M.A.P is just a higher dose of that, designed to change the lining of the womb to stop attachment. Does this mean everytime I have a period I'm also losing a baby?

---

by Maffrew
I don't think anyone here is trying to discriminate against the man on religious grounds.

---

Even 'tho the man is discriminating against the woman on religious grounds.

I'm off now 'cos I'm getting too cross

If he cannot fufill his job, because of his moral beliefs, He shouldn't do it. It's like being a paramedic who feints at the sight of blood. Freedom of choice is the key phrase here. If he is doing a job that puts his morals in jeopardy... he shouldn't be doing it. he should know that.

Says the Pornographer

---

by Cat
Doesnt any one here realise it's not only immoral but illegal to discriminate based on religion?

---

I wondered how long before that would be produced.

Wrongful discrimination occurs when a decision is made about someone based on religion/race/disability etc when their faith/race/disability should play absolutely no part in that decision.

In the case of employment, that would involve treating someone differently because of their race/religion/disability when their race/religion/disability in now way affects their ability to do the job. In this case it is quite clear that this is not the case and again, your point is invalid.

---

by Cat
And DJ - i dont feel i contradicted myself.

---

You might not think that, but the tone of your post certainly indicated that you feel that people wanting citizenship should comply with whatever that country requires. One of those requirements is surely to accept the ethics and morals of that country which are, in part, layed down by the laws of that country. People who are already citizens of that country surely have to do the same? Unless of course you're advocating the bizarre situation where people who become citizens have to abide by those ethics but people who are already citizens don't?